Re: Open source licenses explained
- Posted by ags <eu at 531pi.co.nz>
Sep 22, 2006
don cole wrote:
>
> When ever I see the word licenses I quit reading because I find it boring.
> If I am installing a new program and it says "I agree with the terms of
> license"
> or "I do not agree with the terms of the license" I ALWAYS select
> "I agree" whether I agree to the terms or not. Otherwise the new program will
> not install. Don't tell me I'm the only one who lies about this. I believe the
> licensing should be left up to the attorneys for I am just a simple
> programmer.
I do this too Don (with the exception of scanning the license for my permission
to install spyware, then I very rarely agree).
But when it comes to developing an application with libraries I always look at
the license (in case I want to commercialise it, not that I ever have 
A classic example is BASS. I developed an databased (EDS) MP3 playing system
using BASS (which is very good) for a radio station which while technically
belonging to my employer (or at least morally) would take very little effort to
reimplement in a 'clean' environment (since I would want to re-write it anyway).
But one look at the BASS library license put me off that idea completely. (Can
you say $$$? :)
As far as Euphoria goes, I would like to see a dual license like Perl (LGPL and
something else).
Gary
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
